Positive Reviews For Nvidia' GeForce 6800 Ultra 564
Sander Sassen writes "Following months of heated discussion and rumors about the performance of Nvidia' new NV4x architecture, today their new graphics cards based on this architecture got an official introduction. Hardware Analysis posted their first looks at the new GeForce 6800 Ultra and takes it for a spin with all of the latest DirectX 9.0 game titles. The results speak for themselves, the GeForce 6800 Ultra is the new king of the hill, beating ATI's fastest by over 100% in almost every benchmark." Reader egarland adds "Revews are up on Firing Squad, Toms Hardware, Anandtech and Hot Hardware." Update: 04/14 16:54 GMT by T : Neophytus writes "HardOCP have their real life gameplay review available."
nvidia's back (Score:3, Insightful)
Did anyone else notice the size of the die rivals even that of the Pentium 4 EE? This thing is frickin' huge!
Power Requirements (Score:5, Insightful)
but it requires a 480 watt power supply
and 2 power connections... And it also has what looks to be a vacuum cleaner tied to it..
I currently use a shuttle skn41g2 for my main box.. I love the sff pc's. This won't work in that.. It would make the includied power supply very sad.
My HTPC box uses an antec sonata with a fanless radeon 9000, and ultra quiet everything else.. Forget using this in a quiet pc as well
I don't care for nvidia's trend towards hideously loud, bulky, power hungry video cards.. They might perform well, but for normal use, i'd prefer something smaller and quieter.. and for god's sake, give me an external power supply.. heh
the cards are still all very expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
This is an excellent development (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:nvidia's back (Score:3, Insightful)
Money (Score:2, Insightful)
No seriously, this thing costs more than a new full fledged computer.
Re:nvidia's back (Score:5, Insightful)
"... by over 100% in almost every benchmark"?? (Score:5, Insightful)
To measure how well both cards perform with actual gameplay we used Unreal Tournament 2003 and 2004 and Halo and Far Cry. For both versions of Unreal Tournament we've used the built-in benchmark, which consists of a flyby and a botmatch. We've omitted the flyby scores as they doesn't tell us much about performance during actual gameplay, just how fast the graphics card is able to render the flyby. With UT2003 the lead the GeForce 6800 Ultra takes over the Radeon 9800 XT is less impressive, at a 1024x768 and 1280x1024 resolutions it is only 6% faster. At 1600x1200 however the GeForce 6800 Ultra pulls away and clocks in 21% faster. With UT2004 the difference is much bigger, starting off at 10% at 1024x768 up to 65% faster at 1600x1200. What is also noteworthy is the fact that the performance of the Radeon 9800 XT drops at higher resolutions whereas that of the GeForce 6800 Ultra stays at about the same level.
I know this is
Re:the cards are still all very expensive (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Power Requirements (Score:4, Insightful)
Now power consumption... that can be an issue.
Talk about cornering the market ... (Score:2, Insightful)
... but what am I going to have to PAY for this beautiful monster?
It's big (2 slots), it probably runs VERY VERY hot, takes two power connectors... but it seems to trump EVERYTHING else so far, and not by small amounts!
Fanboyism (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I don't get the fanboy rivalries--I have a Radeon in my laptop and a Geforce in my desktop, and that's just what I happened to buy at the time, no fanboy adherism going on.
FX 6200? (Score:3, Insightful)
No more Quake bencmarks?! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still the only game that can push the hardware to its limits reliably. All those other games tend to have bottlenecks that are algorithm/code related rather than hardware related (like the scripting engine in UT).
Too bad, I found Quake3 to be one of the most accurate because it ran at such a low level and could pretty push the hardware. It's not like those other games are using the hardware shaders yet anyway (or are they?).
I wish .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish that people that pretend to be computer experts would do the teeniest bit of research.
How about this gem: First introduced in 1995, Microsoft's DirectX application programming interface (API) was designed to make life easier for developers by providing a standard platform for Windows-based PCs. Before the arrival of DirectX, developers had to program their software titles to take advantage of features found in individual hardware components. With the wealth of devices on the market, this could become a tedious, time-consuming process.
I'm glad he cleared that up for us. Because this little known company called SGI [sgi.com] didn't develop OpenGL [opengl.org] back in 1992 [sgi.com]. In fact, were it not for MS, we would still be in the computer graphics dark ages.
I'm not trying to troll here. I am just pissed that people pretend to be experts when they don't have a clues what they are talking about.
I sense a change in the force..... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a very limited number of gamers that will buy this card - you literally have to build a whole new PC around it considering the power requirements and the slot hoggishness. I wont be buying one. My 9500 Pro Oc'ed to 300/300 with a 3000+ AMD *STILL* plays anything without problems ( at least any I can see )
Even if ATi does come out with a card that beats it, I wont be buying one of those either. Gaming is only *part* of what I use computers for. These days at age 40 I cant compete with the twitchy youngsters anyways :D
I care a lot more these days about how well my data is protected and how good the whole experience is, not how many fps I get in some game.
Perhaps i'll be able to afford a 9800XT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No more Quake bencmarks?! (Score:1, Insightful)
There's already examples of this in real world games such as FarCry. For example, force the terrain in the game to not LOD at all. The polycount will go up by around a factor of 10, but the framerate will be unchanged.
Re:Power Requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
When you watch tv, turn on the radio to a low sound level.
Even if you have the tv up loud, its still annoying.
(Not to mention using the computer for non-gaming stuff)
Re:How is it the "King of the hill"? (Score:2, Insightful)
The point was that the new GeForce is at the top now.
Re:More info, pcis, and a different view (Score:4, Insightful)
What are the recommended power supply brands? (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to upgrade? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No more Quake bencmarks?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is incredibly meaningful to see that card X can do 672 frames per second in Quake 3, and card Y can do 784 frames per second, even though your monitor can't show it that quickly or your eyes wouldn't see the difference if it could. When you can boast to your friends about numbers like that, who needs to know how the cards perform in modern games, the ones people actually choose to upgrade their cards for?
linux k2.6 driver on dual 64-bit opteron support? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FX 6200? (Score:4, Insightful)
The current generation's low-end cards (as well as the last gen or two) aren't really worth the money if you want to do anything more complex than 3d screensavers. The FX5200 is a dog that isn't really any faster than the GF4mx was & isn't really worth using in DX9. The Radeon 9200 is actually slower than the 9100 & 9000. Eventually, the FX 6x00 core will be adapted to a chip that sucks just as much & you'd probably be better off getting a high to mid range card from the previous generation.
Intel makes a 3.4GHz P4EE and AMD has the Athlon64 FX-53, both of which are $800+ CPUs, you don't see (many) people complaining about the top of the line chips there being over twice the price of the chip 2 steps down ($275 should get you an Athlon64 3200+ or a P4 3.2GHz), yet when a new graphics card comes out and it's $500 every lines up to talk shit.
Yet there's always going to be something in the $100-150 range (what's considered reasonable mid-range for serious gaming) that's worth buying (barring some sort of hyper-inflation); you don't always have to have the latest & greatest thing on the market. Game manufacturers realize this and target their games to be playable on $50 cards, ideal for $100-150 cards and able to take advantage of the $500 cards.
PCI-Express (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point if no one can afford it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Something in that will have to be redesigned before people will consider buying it.
While some hardcore gamers wouldn't mind throwing that kinda cash at a vid card right now, most people won't. Of course, these cards are intended for general consumers once they get about a year old or in the $100-$299 price range, but the 480 watt power supply is like $20 extra per month on your electric bill if you're using it a lot!
That'll be quite a shocker when people figure out that their brand new video card is spiking their elec. bill.
Re:I sense a change in the force..... (Score:4, Insightful)
90% of the performance of this beastie but has lower power requirements ( 1 molex or none )
I very much doubt Ati's new card won't need any additional power. Don't forget Ati's 9700 Pro was the first card to require more power than the AGP slot provided.
PCI slots aren't as useful as they used to be. So much is on board now so PCI cards aren't needed. Take the Asus A7N8X for instance, it has two network connectors on board as well as sound comparable to a high quality PCI sound card. And don't forget the slot you lose is the first one, which shares an IRQ with the AGP slot so it isn't a good idea to use it in any case.